G.R. No. A.M. No. P-14-3223 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3344-P). February 27, 2024.
Leonila V. Beltran, Complainant, vs. Raineria S. Pabica, Stenographer I/Acting Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Palompon, Leyte, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Leonila V. Beltran was a defendant in Civil Case No. 461 for Recovery of Possession and Ownership before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Palompon, Leyte, where respondent Raineria S. Pabica served as Court Stenographer I and Acting Clerk of Court. Pabica approached Beltran after a hearing to convince her to replace her original counsel, Atty. Raymund B. Samson, with Atty. Camilo P. Esmero, despite Beltran’s reservations because Atty. Esmero had previously represented the plaintiffs and notarized documents used as evidence against her. Beltran complied based on Pabica’s advice. On September 20, 2007, Pabica informed Beltran by phone that a decision was forthcoming and could be influenced in her favor for PHP 15,000.00, which Beltran paid that evening, with Pabica signing a receipt. The MTC later ruled against Beltran. Pabica then advised appealing to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which dismissed the appeal due to flaws in the memorandum filed by Atty. Esmero. Pabica further advised filing a motion for reconsideration, for which she collected PHP 4,000.00 from Beltran on September 8, 2008. The motion was filed 42 days late and was denied. Beltran alleged Pabica deliberately caused the late filing. During administrative proceedings, Pabica repeatedly failed to comply with directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the Court to file her comment and show cause, leading to a finding of disobedience and a fine, which she also ignored.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Raineria S. Pabica is administratively liable for Gross Misconduct and Gross Insubordination.

RULING

Yes, the Court found respondent Raineria S. Pabica guilty of Gross Misconduct and Gross Insubordination.
First, Pabica violated Canon IV, Section 5 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (CCCP) by meddling in Civil Case No. 461 and recommending a private attorney (Atty. Esmero) to the litigant, which is explicitly prohibited. Her actions were more egregious given Atty. Esmero’s apparent conflict of interest, having previously represented the opposing party. This constituted grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as established in Office of the Court Administrator v. Buzon.
Second, Pabica violated Canon I, Sections 1 and 2 of the CCCP by using her official position to solicit and accept money (PHP 15,000.00 and PHP 4,000.00) from Beltran with the promise of influencing the court’s decision, which is strictly prohibited.
Third, Pabica exhibited Gross Insubordination by repeatedly failing to comply with the Court’s directives to file her comment and show cause, despite receiving notices, demonstrating defiance of lawful orders.
Considering Pabica’s compulsory retirement on December 30, 2019, the Court imposed the penalty of forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency or corporation. The Court also directed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to investigate Atty. Camilo P. Esmero for possible conflict of interest violations.